Researchers who wrote “design by the Creator” in a paper about the function of the human hand have triggered a debate over the quality of editing and peer review at the journal that published it. The paper by Cai-Hua Xiong of Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China, and his co-authors appeared in the journal PLoS ONE on 5 January.

[…]

After the social-media storm, PLOS issued an initial statement to the media saying “PLOS has just been made aware of this issue and we are looking into it in depth. Our internal editors are reviewing the manuscript and will decide what course of action to take. The PLOS publishing team is also assessing its processes.”

Later, the journal added an online statement to the paper: “A number of readers have concerns about sentences in the article that make references to a ‘Creator’. The PLOS ONE editors apologize that this language was not addressed internally or by the Academic Editor during the evaluation of the manuscript. We are looking into the concerns raised about the article with priority and will take steps to correct the published record.”

Hand coordination can allow humans to have dexterous control with many degrees of freedom to perform various tasks in daily living. An important contributing factor to this important ability is the complex biomechanical architecture of the human hand. However, drawing a clear functional link between biomechanical architecture and hand coordination is challenging. … The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way. The clear link between the structure and the function of the human hand also suggests that the design of a multifunctional robotic hand should be able to better imitate such basic architecture.

It was written by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

This would seem to bear out a remark by Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen, recounted in Darwin’s Doubt, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”

Yes, there’s no place a creationist can hide from the wrath of the Darwinists. The witch-hunt is global. Let’s read on:

Some startling language appears in a paper by Chinese researchers published in a very mainstream journal, PLOS ONE.

We know, so we’ll skip that. Klinghoffer continues:

By the time I had picked myself up off the floor, I also saw that the journal’s editorial staff was in high emergency alert. A note at the top of the Reader Comments section states:

[Klinghoffer quotes from the journal’s note:] A number of readers have concerns about sentences in the article that make references to a ‘Creator’. The PLOS ONE editors apologize that this language was not addressed internally or by the Academic Editor during the evaluation of the manuscript. We are looking into the concerns raised about the article with priority and will take steps to correct the published record.

Klinghoffer is enjoying himself. Here’s more:

This is followed by a list of sputtering denunciations [in the comments section of the journal]. A mob with pitchforks demanding retribution is predictable, and here they come. I too wonder what the editor was thinking. But these people are not going to be satisfied until someone has been punished. And of course they are not even going to consider the argument of the paper.

When you read the paper, you’ll see no evidence of a creator. Klinghoffer quotes several of the highly critical comments, and then he says:

It goes on. The note of career anxiety — no, panic — is telling. These folks don’t want to be rendered ritually impure by contact with a bit of injudicious language. Predictably, Twitter is aflutter. And the ever-useful website Retraction Watch has already reported on it. The paper’s editor apologized: “I am sorry for this has happened. I am contacting PLoS one to see whether we can fix the issue.”

Then Klinghoffer lectures us about intelligent design:

Let’s be clear on a point of science: Researchers associated with the intelligent design movement agree that the scientific evidence alone tells you only of a design behind nature, teleology, not a Creator. Identifying the source of the design with God is a religious conclusion not compelled by the scientific evidence, including the architecture of the human hand.

Yeah, there’s a big difference. He concludes with this:

So far the journal article stands as is. I feel for the authors and the editor, who probably also weren’t looking to spark a riot. I guess it will be retracted and that one or more parties will be battered and humiliated — the censors will accept nothing less. So it goes in the calcified world of science. We’ll keep an eye on the situation and let you know what happens.

Yeah, the “calcified world of science.” Meanwhile, a new development occurred after Klinghoffer posted. PLOS ONE has retracted the paper — see Follow-up Notification from PLOS Staff, which says:

The PLOS ONE editors have followed up on the concerns raised about this publication. We have completed an evaluation of the history of the submission and received advice from two experts in our editorial board. Our internal review and the advice we have received have confirmed the concerns about the article and revealed that the peer review process did not adequately evaluate several aspects of the work.

In light of the concerns identified, the PLOS ONE editors have decided to retract the article, the retraction is being processed and will be posted as soon as possible. We apologize for the errors and oversight leading to the publication of this paper.

No doubt, the Discoveroids will seize upon the retraction as “proof” of the conspiracy to suppress The Truth™. Very predictable, and we look forward to it.

15 responses to “Peer-Review Ruckus Thrills Discovery Institute”

As someone who lives in China and knows that Darwin is completely uncontroversial here, I’d be EXTREMELY surprised if this was anything but a translation issue. Given that more than half of the country is atheist, and the majority of the rest is Buddhist/Confucian/Daoist, which aren’t creationist religions, I strongly doubt that this author was referring literally to a ‘creator’ in the ID/Creationist way of speaking. I’d be very interested to know what the Chinese word that they used was in their report.

I doubt that Chen Junyuan, who was supposed quoted in a Dishonesty Institute book, really doubts Darwinian evolution. He was involved in the 1999 Chengjiang fossil conference in Haikou, Yunnan, China. That infamous meeting (which was great in many ways) involved the DI luring real scientists in (by lying/not coming clean) and IDiots presenting “papers” and demanding that they be published in a conference proceedings volume alongside real paleontology articles. Chen was there because he’s a Chengjiang fossil researcher. I have many of his publications. I sense no obvious creationism or IDiocy in them. The fossils he studies and writes about are part of the Cambrian Explosion – a relatively rapid evolutionary event in earliest Cambrian time. It has nothing to do with magic or the supernatural or intelligent aliens.

Yes – there are translation/comprehension issues between the West and the East. That’s only natural. I can only decipher one or two dozen Chinese characters and words with a cheat sheet – not enough to read a newspaper, but enough to recognize the name of my favorite fossils, the trilobites. And enough to say “Hello” and “Thank you” and such. I have tremendous empathy for folks trying to learn the ins & outs of English as a second langauge.

However, I’m a bit suspicious about the usage of “the Creator” in the article that everyone is currently excited about. It doesn’t seem like the ordinary translation glitches I encounter.

But, the previous commenter is right – creationism-style beliefs are apparently very rare in China. Hmmm. Puzzling.

I’ve been scouring my Chinese-English dictionary to try to find what word the author might have used in the original Chinese, but with little luck. I’d be very interested to know what Chinese term is being translated here.

Yes, upon looking for that term, that does appear to be the correct one. It appears that it can have a naturalistic sense and a supernatural sense, and my dictionary says that it is a formal term, the type you’d use in a scientific paper.

“It seems the real issue is that no one at PLOS ONE is reading papers before accepting them.”

No, it doesn’t mean that. PLoS ONE has quite a rigorous review system (as I know from both sides, reviewer and reviewee). I think what may have happened is that, after the several rounds of review and resubmission, they altered the final submission and nobody picked this up.

Also, I made a common on the PLoS ONE website fairly early on in the proceedings, under the title “Maybe leave the article as is”.

“This article could be extremely important in the battle against creationism. The conclusion of the authors is their interpretation of the data, not necessarily something that the data actually show: but the publication of such an article clearly puts paid to the assertion that no creationists are “allowed” to present their views in scientific journals. Now their conclusions can be dealt with by the scientific community, and the whinging about censorship can itself be silenced.”

.Nobody seems to have even noticed this comment, let alone paid any heed to it — the DI firestorm was predictable. But one of the earlier comments was certainly worth noting:

“Humans occasionally use their hand as a tool of masturbation, one of “a multitude of daily tasks” performed “in a comfortable way”. Masturbation is a sinful activity according to most religions […]
Thus, the hand cannot have been designed by a divine Creator, but in fact possibly by the Devil himself, to lead the humanity (and other apes) into temptation. “

I once tried to track down that famous “quote” of Chen’s, which reads more like something out of a fortune cookie than anything a scientist would actually say, especially one whose first language was not English. There is no good evidence that Chen actually said that, or anything like it: rather it appears to be a fabrication initiated and perpetuated by Jonathan Wells.

Let’s be clear on a point of science: Researchers associated with the intelligent design movement agree that the scientific evidence alone tells you only of a design behind nature, teleology, not a Creator. Identifying the source of the design with God is a religious conclusion not compelled by the scientific evidence, including the architecture of the human hand.

Yeah, yeah. Talking about design doesn’t imply a designer. Pull the other one.

But I’m glad to hear that K. admits that bringing in God as the designer is a purely religious conclusion not supported (“compelled”) by the evidence. Now watch to see whether other creationists, the ones who believe, or pretend, that the evidence does “compel” belief in the Judeo-Christian God as the Designer pick up on how he’s sabotaged them and burn a cross on his front lawn.

Possibly not. Von Sternberg’s paper was intended to be an ID paper, and the peer-review process was deliberately bypassed. In this case, if we’re to believe what’s being said, the problem was: (1) faulty translation, where “nature” in Chinese was somehow translated to “Creator” with a capital “C”; and (2) unbelievably sloppy review and editing.

Correction: Von Sternberg was the editor. The paper was by Discoveroid Stephen Meyer.

“the scientific evidence alone tells you only of a design behind nature, teleology”
And exactly teleology is what makes IDiocy unscientific. Ah well, nobody is surprised anymore that Klinkleclapper wants to turn back his clocks with 200+ years.

This blog's RSS feed link:

Search for:

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Commenting Rules

Creationists should read the rules before posting any comments. See Comment Rules.

Here's how to use the available codes. Note that codes are used in pairs, to turn the effect on and then off again. Please don’t start one of these codes without closing it:

For italics:

<em>text</em>

For bold:

<strong>text</strong>

For strikethrough:

<del>text</del>

For blockquotes:

<blockquote>this will appear both indented and in italics</blockquote>